A year ago fired U.S. Attorney John McKay was being lionized by the mainstream media for supposedly resisting partisan political pressure to conduct a baseless investigation into Washington's 2004 gubernatorial election. The media accepted as settled fact McKay's insistence that he conducted a thorough investigation and found "no evidence" of crimes. When I interviewed McKay last May it came out that his "investigation" was limited to reviewing trial documents, that he demanded an implausibly high standard of "evidence" (amounting to a confession of participation in a conspiracy to tip the election) before he would proactively investigate or even interview election workers, and he denied knowledge of the hundreds of unlawfully counted votes that were discovered only after the trial ended.
McKay suggested that I FOIA his "close out" memo of the investigation, which would document his investigation in great detail. EFF Legal Counsel Jonathan Bechtle made the FOIA request and received the memo earlier this month. [PDF here] The memo confirms: the investigation was a sham. The FBI and DoJ wouldn't even acknowledge post-trial reports of unlawful vote counting.
Bechtle comments:
Generally, the memo verifies McKay's account of his reasons behind not pursuing an investigation: that he wouldn't have investigated unless someone dropped concrete forensic evidence of a crime in his lap. His office's great reluctance to get involved is shown throughout the document, as demonstrated by the following paragraph:Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 24, 2008 12:03 PM | Email This"After an extensive review of the applicable law, however, I concluded that even if the affidavits had been forged, because the federal issues on the ballot had already been decided by mid-November and because the conduct did not involve state action, the federal government did not have jurisdiction over the alleged conduct. Therefore, I informed BIAW that it may wish to report the conduct to State authorities and the political parties."A few further observations on the memo:- The above-cited paragraph contradicts McKay's statement to the group of reporters that he "actually overruled the section of the Department of Justice that said to me "don't move forward with this" because it involves an election for governor of the state of Washington."
- Despite the memo being sent in March of 2006, there is no mention of any investigation taking place after the Chelan trial wrapped up. Your evidence of the "fatal pend" ballots, sent to the FBI and Arlen Storm in the fall of 2005, was totally ignored.
- McKay placed great faith in the findings of the trial court. The lack of fraud findings by Bridges was treated as the final word on the presence of fraud.
- Despite McKay's public ridicule of EFF and BIAW's allegations, this memo demonstrates that his office did see the potential for crimes in what our two organizations submitted, but they simply declined to investigate based on various excuses: Bridges' lack of fraud findings, reliance on state authorities to investigate, and not being handed open-and-shut cases.
- Nowhere in this memo is it evident that a task force came to these conclusions. Storm claims them all as his own decisions.
This memo presents a fascinating contrast to a report released last month by a task force investigating election fraud in the 2004 Milwaukee election. That election involved far fewer allegations of fraud than our gubernatorial race, and had no similar high-profile close race. Yet this group of law enforcement officers, formed by the Wisconsin U.S. Attorney, spent three years painstakingly combing through records and ballots. They ended up prosecuting a dozen voters, and produced a highly-detailed report pointing out problem areas in election administration, and what could be done to fix them. (Report available here) The contrast with McKay's actions could not be greater.
If my recollection is any good, I didn't see much reference to this evidence in the court challenge to the election, and I felt at the time that it could have been put to far better use than it was.
If my recollection is bad, and Judge Bridges was well aware of Stefan's exhibits, I don't mind being corrected. But it seemed that the Republican challenge was unfocused and could have been presented far better. Am I wrong?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 24, 2008 01:01 PMIn some ways I applaud Rossi's decision, since he wanted a governor, any governor at least. Delays would have prolonged the time we wouldn't have a governor-in-waiting.
And then to further challenge to the State and Federal courts, more time would have been spent.
Posted by: swatter on March 24, 2008 01:09 PMHow the court arguement became a matter of proving who voted how in a SECRET ballot is beyond me.
The conduct of the recounts, last minute ballots "found" and then counted outside of the law as well as the number of ballots vs the number of voters should have ruled the day.
I blame a bad challege strategy coupled with the usual lack of CAJONES on the part of the Repubs in this state.
Face it, the politcal lanscape in WA is littered dirty with Liberals....in BOTH parties.
Posted by: Sam Adams on March 24, 2008 01:16 PMThey're felonies... can't this same information be submitted to the McKay's replacement?
Posted by: Al on March 24, 2008 01:24 PMI just hope the pressure on KC elections this year will have a different outcome that last time. Any chance we can get those election officals we send to underdeveloped countries to monitor our election here?
Posted by: skyeyedgal on March 24, 2008 01:30 PMThe election contest legal challenge had to be filed within a set deadline. It is not true at all that the Party "wanted more time to prepare." Our case was driven by legal timelines, not political decisions.
Our legal team did make many of the same arguments Stefan made regarding illegal votes, ballot security, and ballot reconciliation. We proved our case. Unfortunately, the judge agreed with the Democrats that the law required proof that Gregoire won directly and specifically because of illegal votes. We lost the argument regarding what it took to contest an election, not the facts surrounding the case.
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 24, 2008 01:39 PMThank you. There is this persistent myth that we ignored all the evidence you uncovered.
I think you will agree that in terms of winning the contest case, however, it ended up being irrelevant due to Judge Bridges' interpretation of the law.
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 24, 2008 02:13 PMIf you are appalled by ACORN fraud, the numerous Mailbox and Storage Facility Registrations, and all of the illegally stuffed provisionals counted by Bill Huennekens and team, VOTE ROSSI.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 24, 2008 02:44 PMThat is not accurate.
The Democrats argued that you had to prove how each illegal vote was cast. We argued that you could do some simple math and determine that it was highly likely that Gregoire won with illegal votes. This standard had been used in other cases in other states. The judge agreed with the Ds.
The Democrats argued that the law only gave the judge the option of making Rossi Governor or rejecting the challenge. We argued that if the judge agreed that it was impossible to determine a winner he could order a new election. The judge agreed with the Ds.
Our legal team did a great job, but the contest statute is very vague and on the key issues the judge agreed with their interpretation of the law.
This is another in my ongoing efforts to prevent revisionist history from taking hold!
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 24, 2008 03:04 PMThis guy is a political science major, but he hates politics, but has a good head on his shoulders (other than politics). I use him as a sanity checker since he is down home and says what the practical normal voter is all about. So, Rossi has his work cut out for him because he did the challenge.
It's not fair, but that is the way it is. Oh, he is at least six votes.
Posted by: swatter on March 24, 2008 03:18 PMWell, the polls show this race is basically dead even, so I don't think there is any evidence the challenge hurt Dino politically!
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 24, 2008 03:23 PM"Can't we get over this. :)"
Sure, Duff... right after you and your fellow leftists get over the Florida recount.
Posted by: hinton on March 24, 2008 06:22 PMExplain to me why the Washington State Republican Party will not release the names of the attorneys and the legal firms they represented who were council to the 'Republican' Party in the legal challenge to the 2004 Washington State Gubernatorial election.
What, or is it who, is the 'leadership' of the Washington State Republican Party hiding?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on March 24, 2008 08:22 PMAttorney General Ashcroft declared a policy of opposing all FOIA requests, a policy which continues to this day. Yet, the right-wing EFF gets this memo, apparently with ease. Another great surprise.
"McKay placed great faith in the findings of the trial court. The lack of fraud findings by Bridges was treated as the final word on the presence of fraud."
Whoever heard of an attorney taking direction from the ruling of a judge? What an outlandish act!
"After an extensive review of the applicable law, however, I concluded that even if the affidavits had been forged, because the federal issues on the ballot had already been decided by mid-November and because the conduct did not involve state action, the federal government did not have jurisdiction over the alleged conduct. Therefore, I informed BIAW that it may wish to report the conduct to State authorities and the political parties."
Mr. McKay, federalism does not involve separating federal from state issues! How dare you suggest otherwise!
Attorney General McKenna did not conduct an investigation. Is he derelict in his duties?
Posted by: tensor on March 24, 2008 08:30 PMBrian,
Our legal team consisted of Harry Korrell of Davis, Wright, Tremaine in Seattle; Dale Foreman, and Mark Braden, a lawyer based in Washington, D.C.
We never tried to hide anything. How could we? They were on TV every day arguing our case!
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 24, 2008 08:36 PMSo, a memo from the highly politicized Justice Department smears someone who was fired -- then publicly smeared as incompetent. Wow, what a surprise. As the subsequent Congressional inquiry demonstrated, the Bush Administration publicly contradicted the DoJ's internal assessments of the eight fired U.S. Attorneys.Did you even read the memo? It was written by a member of McKay's own staff under McKay's direction while McKay was still the US Attorney, in order to summarize the work that McKay's team performed. Sheesh. Posted by: The Real Stefan Sharkansky on March 24, 2008 09:10 PM
" We never tried to hide anything. "
Really?
Then explain why Luke Esser has refused to release that information to me. Is there more to Luke Esser's refusal to release that information than Luke Esser simply refusing to respond to requests for information from Conservative Republicans?
Interesting. Diane Tebelius and John White, against whom I filed an ethics complaint with the Washington State Bar Association. Interesting in that Diane Tebelius didn't even bother to respond to the notification from the Bar Association. Evidently she didn't think was necessary.
And then there is Davis Wright Tremaine, who hired Gary Locke soon after he left office, known for its support of Liberal causes. And candidates.
Does this have anything to do with you being removed as State Chair?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on March 24, 2008 10:01 PMAre we a little bitter? What's the beef? Sounds like we have some unsettled business.
Posted by: Silkworm on March 24, 2008 10:14 PMGarth Fell, of the made up mail ballot report, is working hard to disenfranchise the Snohomish County voter.
The January 2005 Speaker Pro Tem, a retired State Trooper and now elected Snoho Co Sheriff, John Lovick, looked the other way.
John McKay looked the other way in the face of evidence that just keeps growing up through the cracks.
The Repubs were not gutty enough instead falling to the shame of the local media. Go to he double toothpicks the lot of you in the media.
Do you really think it was a justifiable idea to steal an election?
Look at what this poor woman that has to pretend she won. She can't lead because of the doubt that rattles in her head instead she dictates and decrees rather than serve and lead. Bitter and angry that tick tock of the clock gets louder and louder. Why would you do that to her?
Dean Logan is now prepping to help Hillary in LA.
The Repubs have almost hit the bottom of the cliff as the two highest ranking R's think it is a good idea to have any top two go ahead to the general election!?!?!? SayWA???
Someone please get Sam Reed's registration changed to Joel Connelly's cabin (oh wait now I am busted and all fire and wrath of the now mighty local US Attorney's office for some conspiracy).
Bottom line no one has ever defeated the clear and abundant information in the case. Sure a judge ruled against it but the R's instead of fighting the case in the public and burying the State house in voice mail, protests and phone calls it became a battle between those that wanted justice and those that wanted anarchy at all costs.
No one has ever wanted to prosecute or sit a grand jury or hold up the legislture or just tell the people that is the way it is. The tragedy in all this is we have leaders not elected with a mandate but leaders boxed in by pride that are stuck dominating us. That is called a coup.
You think we can get a straight up statewide election? Sam?? Paging Sam Reed.
If this new USAG's office had any balls it would record the entire King County 2008 ballot printing and distribution, voting, counting, signature verification and make it a double blind system to reprint additional ballots. Destroy the notion of remade ballots, demand the return of polling place only balloting statewide.
Anyways some days ya just need to beat the refs as well and this fall will we ever.
To rip off duffboy...Garth Fell Pull Out Now! Diepenbrock Pull Out Now! Sam Reed Pull Out Now!
Just how much experience did any of those attorneys you hired
have contesting election laws?
How come when David Adams a man
who was heavily involved in the
Florida mess of 2000 called you
to offer his help in this that you never returned his call?
With the kind of money that you
and the state party spent on legal fees you could have hired
the best. Someone like Mark Levin and the Landmark legal
Foundation, who actually specializes in this type of law.
What did work did Diane Tebelius
do to warrant being paid 107,000
dollars in legal fees?you and I both know she has about as much
experience in election law as Dale Foreman which adds up to virtually none.
Once again sir you are the one
revising history. When you hire
people that have very little in
the way of election law experience what kind of an outcome do you expect to end up
with.
Brian,
The membership of our legal team was very public information. Their names were listed in court documents. They appeared on TV and were quoted in newspapers. Our payments to them were listed in our PDC and FEC reports. We couldn't have hidden that information if we had tried!
Davis Wright Tremaine is a very big law firm. Some of their lawyers are Republicans, others are Democrats. Harry Korrell is a very loyal Republican.
I was not removed as Chairman. I was elected three times then chose to resign to accept a job in the private sector midway through my third term.
#31
Phil,
I don't remember getting a call from anyone named David Adams and I have no idea who that is.
Mark Braden had extensive experience in election contests and similar cases. He is a national expert in the field and was recomended to us by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Governors Association.
Harry Korrell is a very strong litigator with a large firm. Dale Foreman gave us a strong local presence. Diane Tebelius is an experienced federal prosecutor and worked on the Slade Gorton recount. John White is the WSRP's legal counsel and an expert in election law. I think we had a great team.
It is probably a waste of my time, but I feel compelled to continue to refute the myths, lies, and goofy rumors that surround the 2004 election and it's aftermath.
Oh come on you expect me to believe you don't know who David
Adams is? Remember the guy that
ran Diane Tebelius successful campaign to fill out your term
as state chair? Of course he had
to threaten to sue Diane get paid what he was owed.
As to your claims about the attorneys you hired anyone can
make the assertions you did about them. It would be like me
saying Mark Hulst was good county political party chair and so that would make him a good state chair and then just leaving it at that. The difference is I along with many
others can back that statement up with years of documented proof of his success. Unlike you
that just expects everyone else
to take your word for it because you said so.For crying out loud
Chris Vance can't you for once admit you screwed up.
Phil,
You said our team had no experience in election contests, right? Mark Braden's profile from his firm's website:
"E. Mark Braden concentrates his work principally on election law and governmental affairs. This field includes work with Congress, the Federal Election Commission, state campaign finance agencies, public integrity issues, political broadcast regulation, contests, recounts, the Voting Rights Act, initiatives, referendums and redistricting. Each is an area in which he has substantial knowledge and unusual experience.
Mr. Braden spent ten years as Chief Counsel to the Republican National Committee prior to joining Baker Hostetler. He has worked intimately with many elected officials, the major national political consultants and pollsters providing successful, and often highly innovative, legal guidance.
For example, in campaign finance, he can rightly claim to be the father of "soft money" as now used in national political campaigns. In redistricting, he has argued successfully at the U.S. Supreme Court and has been involved in litigation across the nation. In addition to his experience in the area of federal election law, Mr. Braden is widely recognized as an authority on state election laws, having served as Chief Counsel to the Ohio Elections Commission and Election Counsel for the Secretary of State in Ohio. He has been a principal lawyer in many of the largest recounts in our political history.
Mr. Braden was a key negotiator for the site city agreements and many of the other contracts for four Republican National Conventions and has been special counsel to the House Administration Committee. He has also worked with many nonprofit organizations on government affairs issues.
Mr. Braden has testified before congressional committees and the Federal Election Commission on numerous occasions. His experience in these areas has been recognized by numerous invitations to be a guest lecturer at universities and institutes across the nation.
Mr. Braden is a member of the adjunct faculty of George Washington University and a former Captain of the United States Army Reserve."
Thanks for your posts. They prove what everybody else already knows: You are an absolute idiot.
It's fun watching your nonsense get taken to task.
Posted by: Cliff on March 25, 2008 08:49 AMChris,
I met Braden after one of the oral arguments at the state SC. He did a great job.
The real problem was with the Davis Wright Tremaine law firm hired by the Republicans. Is there a law firm more associated with the state Democratic Party? After all, they did hire Locke when he decided not to run. For some reason they neglected to include a claim of vote fraud in the original complaint contesting the election. You think that was a mere "oversight"?
You think DWT wanted to win that case? Not a chance in the world.
On top of that, I sent you information concerning racketeering crimes committed by members of the state supreme court, Gregoire and McKenna; and requested that you write about it. You claimed that you were merely a private citizen and claimed to have no influence. That was a lie and you know it. The reality is that some of your buddies would also have their criminal conduct exposed as well; and you are more concerned with protecting them than exposing corruption.
I could produce the emails if you'd like.
Anyone interested in the proof of corruption can do a search for Washington State Supreme Court Case No. 77345-9 - In re: The Recall of Christine Gregoire. You will find no record of it on the WA SC web site, on any docket, or any published decision even thought required by the state constitution, RCWs and the court's own rules.
Why can't you find a record of it? Because the proof of rackeetering by the members of the WA SC, Locke, Gregoire, McKenna is so overwhelming the public would be outraged if they learned of it.
How does this relate to McKay? McKay admitted to me that I was a victim of Civil Rights Violations and racketeering when he was the US Attorney but said he would do nothing because they were all friends of his.
He was willing to cover up judicial corruption, so no one should be surprised he would do a sham investigation into election fraud.
BTW Chis, I personally delivered all the proof of racketeering by the courts and Gregoire while you were the Chairman of the state GOP. I was right there in your office talking to you. At the time, I was surprised why you didn't want to use it. I am no longer surprised that state Republican elite don't want to expose political and judicial corruption.
Chris, you are a fraud.
Posted by: Don on March 25, 2008 09:12 AMDon,
I am not going to address your personal grievance against the state. I do want to again respond to this assertion regarding DWT because it seems to come up over and over again.
Davis Wright Tremaine employs hundreds of lawyers, including Gary Locke, but they also employ prominent Republicans. Dick Derham, former Reagan administration official, and former King County GOP Chairman, was also once a partner at DWT. No one in this State would question Dick Derham's GOP or conservative credentials.
Our lawyer was Harry Korrell. Harry is a very ardent Republican, and a partner in this big, powerful Seattle firm. Prior to the trial Harry was one of the lawyers helping the Bush campaign.
This is from Harry's profile:
"Washington State Election Counsel to Bush-Cheney '04, Inc., the Washington State Republican Party, and the Rossi for Governor campaign'
Believe me, Harry absolutely wanted to win that case, and he did a fantastic job for us.
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 25, 2008 09:37 AMChris:
" Mark Braden, a lawyer based in Washington, D.C. "
" Mark Braden had extensive experience in election contests and similar cases. He is a national expert in the field and was recommended to us by the Republican National Committee and the Republican Governors Association. "
Experience ("extensive experience in election contests and similar cases ") doing what?
My experience with Mr. Braden was when I was working on the manual recount, as an employee of King County Department of Elections (I had observed the first and second ballet count), and one day when I had gone into the Republican area in an effort to keep Dan Brady apprized as what was happening on the floor of the counting room, until Brady told us not to come into the Republican Party area and not want to eat or drink the food and beverages in the Republican lunch room, something the Democrats didn't mind (I was invited to birthday party), Mr. Braden gave me the 'come here' finger and told me he wanted to talk to me for a couple of minutes.
I told Mr. Braden that I was on my lunch hour, I didn't have time to talk with him then, that it was going to take more than a couple of minutes and that he would need to schedule a time with me after work (the hand count).
Mr. Braden didn't. First hand knowledge was evidently not important to your Mr. Braden.
Nor Dan Brady.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on March 25, 2008 09:40 AMIf BT had been even half as lunatic sounding as he is here, I'd have gotten a restraining order on him.
Posted by: Cliff on March 25, 2008 01:04 PMReally?
" as blatantly rude to me as you were to Mr. Braden, I wouldn't want to talk to you any more, either. "
I can see where someone who thinks as much of himself as does Mark Braden (from the real Washington ) evidently does, having someone tell him that he doesn't have time for him, eating lunch being more important, I see where Mr. Braden would think that rude.
And I can see where someone who thinks as much of himself as does Mark Braden would get in a snit and would not want to talk to someone who would not do what Mr. Braden wanted when Mr. Braden wanted.
Even though that would be doing his job, as I was doing mine when I didn't have the time to talk with him.
" I told Mr. Braden that I was on my lunch hour, I didn't have time to talk with him then, that it was going to take more than a couple of minutes and that he would need to schedule a time with me after work (the hand count). "
" Brian Thomas? If you had been as blatantly rude to me as you were to Mr. Braden, I wouldn't want to talk to you any more, either.
If BT had been even half as lunatic sounding as he is here, I'd have gotten a restraining order on him.
" If BT had been even half as lunatic sounding as he is here, I'd have gotten a restraining order on him. "
My, My, My.
A restraining order against someone to prevent them from eating lunch during the lunch hour so they would have the time to talk with you. I have to admit that is better than being shot for being "blatantly rude" to one of the elite.
1. Forcing recounts until you get your desired outcome
2. Discovery of new uncounted votes
3. Marking up or re-creation of over 65 thousand ballots
4. Sympathetic judges allowing votes by disqualified voters like Larry Phillips
5. Waiting until all the other counties report, to know what the moving target is
6. Obstruction of evidence gathering
7. Disqualification of military votes for lack of postmarks
8. Illegal voter addresses
And on and on...
Does anyone doubt that the whole elections department knew they were on notice that their jobs were on the line if they didn't come through for Ron's friend, the Queen?
Posted by: Yaddacubed on March 25, 2008 03:42 PM" Davis Wright Tremaine employs hundreds of lawyers, including Gary Locke, but they also employ prominent Republicans. Dick Derham, former Reagan administration official, and former King County GOP Chairman, was also once a partner at DWT. No one in this State would question Dick Derham's GOP or conservative credentials. "
Chris:
I have. And I do.
Dick Derham is the Davis Wright Tremaine attorney and self-proclaimed author of the infamous Article 19 of the King County By-Laws, it's use intended to silence Republican activists who are critical of the leadership of the King County, and Washington State, Republican Party.
And Dick Derham can also claim authorship of the Candidate Censorship Agreement, otherwise know as the 11th Commandment, it's use intended to silence Conservative Candidates in the Republican Party.
You are confusing Conservative with Fascist. Is that a result of self-imposed ignorance or is it intentional?
And these are neither the first nor the last time an attorney of uber-Liberal Davis Wright Tremaine left their footprint on the back of conservative members of the Republican Party.
I was told that it was Davis Wright Tremaine attorney Michael Corl, husband of then 37th District Chair Katy Corl, who originally brought into 37th District meetings police from the infamous City of Seattle Police Department's East Precinct 'to maintain order'. 'To maintain order' being an euphemism for 'intimidation' of PCOs who dared question the comments and/or actions of Michael Young's appointed District Chair Katy Corl, PCO and then KCGOP Executive Director Ross Marzolf and PCO and Suellen Roche. I was told by Davis Wright Tremaine attorney Michael Corl's East Precinct fascist thug that if I was "disruptive", "disruptive" being a euphemism for asking a question, I would be told to leave. Of interest is this is the very same East Precinct fascist thug who, in collusion with Progressive Steve Schulman, a good friend of 7th CD executive Board and KCGOP Credentials Committee member Suellen Roche, attempted to fraudulently arrest me for 'trespassing' for shopping at Steve Schulman's Leschi Food Mart when it was actually intended to intimidate me into stop displaying an American flag and Support Our Troops signs in the park next to Mr. Schulman's store, something that Mr. Schulman and his Leschi customers vehemently opposed. When I brought up the issue of Mr. Schulman and his East Precinct fascist thug quashing political free-speech in a public area with Suellen Roche, questioning her continued patronage of Steve Schulman's Leschi Food Mart, Ms. Roche excused Mr. Schulman's actions with " But his wine is so cheap and his sausages are sooo good ".
And, it is my understanding, it is Suellen Roche who, to rationalized Steve Schulman's actions, told then KCGOP Executive Director Ross Marzolf that " I had a problem with Jews. ", Mr. Schulman identifying himself as Jewish. A comment the leadership of the King County Republican Party repeated to party members during my campaign for King County Council District 2, in which is the Jewish enclave of Seward Park and home of Steve Schulman, against Progressive Democrat Larry Gossett, KCGOP Chairman Michael Young's candidate of choice.
P.S. Davis Wright Tremaine, when the hiring of former Governor and Progressive Democrat Gary Lock was announced, ballyhooed Davis Wright Tremaine's close ties to and representation of interests in Communist China. Of no surprise as, as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on March 25, 2008 06:30 PMAs for McKay, he made a poor judgment and decided not to risk his reputation by going out on a limb and asking for a Federal Investigation - instead he came up with excuses (mostly lame ones) and did not serve his constituents. Someone like Mr. McKay would not bother enforcing Federal immigration law either. Clearly, he deserved to be fired - but by an incompetent administration. If McKay would have done an investigation, the end result would have been better even if he found no wrong doing than it is now. As it is, a smackdown on anyone affiliated with ACORN is well warranted. Will it happen ? Probably not - because of the lily livered and pathetic leaders we have in charge. Rossi will have an uphill battle this time around - if he acts more like a leader, the better his chances are.
Posted by: KS on March 25, 2008 07:58 PM" I was not removed as Chairman. I was elected three times then chose to resign to accept a job in the private sector midway through my third term. "
Whatever.
At the time of your 'resignation', you said you had been made an offer you couldn't refuse.
Really? An offer which you couldn't refuse.
I can hear it now, that early morning telephone call from Jennifer Dunn, the Bill Clinton of Washington State Republican politics, saying there was a change of plans and they were making you an offer you could not refuse.
Heh, Heh, Heh.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on March 25, 2008 08:23 PMBrian,
I resigned to accept a very attractive job offer in the private sector. I certainly wasn't forced out. If you remember, I had the strong support of Dino Rossi and our congressional delegation when I ran for re-election.
And, by the way, Jennifer Dunn was no longer a member of Congress at that time.
See, that is why I waste my time here; to make sure posts that like that aren't taken as factual.
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 26, 2008 06:29 AMBut, yours are getting over the edge. I am sorry to hear about the treatment you got from the party and I wish the party didn't run so many away from them.
I just wish the party would go back to basics and build from the bottom up.
Not, from the top down as espoused by old-timers in the party structure. And not playing the Bush's fault card like some posters do. The Bush's fault card, while somewhat true, for the '06 election, is not the reason Rs can't find good candidates and why they are losing the suburbs after abandoning the city.
Posted by: swatter on March 26, 2008 07:43 AMChris,
You are not interested in my personal grievance against the state? Since when is racketeering by every member of the state supreme court, Locke, Gregoire, MeKenna and numerous other judges, prosecutors, LEOS, and others of such little importance?
So you don't care that the Constitutional rights of a citizen that are blatantly violated by the most powerful people in the state is of no import?
Can you explain why no one can find a record of the proceedings in WA SC Case No. 77345-9 - In Re the Recall of Christine Gregoire as Governor?
What is the State SC trying to hide? You know damn well what they are trying to hide, and that is the the courts of the State of Washington is run and controlled in violation of the federal racketeering statutes, and any person who has been screwed over by the state or any political subdivision in any case would be entitled to a new trial or appeal in which any exercise of discretion by a trial court judge could not be granted. That is the real bottom line and it would turn this state on its head.
And besides, you know when this is resolved, a lot of your buddies are going to suffer the consequences of their criminal conduct, because I am not going to quit.
Posted by: Don on March 26, 2008 10:34 AMChris,
If Harry Korrell wanted to win the case, why didn't he allege the most obvious reason to overturn the election, VOTE FRAUD? He tried to raise it later, but Bridges disallowed it because it wasn't in the initial complaint. How could any lawyer be so honestly incompetent to note allege what anyone with a pulse knew to be the main cause of action?
Posted by: Don on March 26, 2008 10:42 AM Again you rewrite history, I suppose you could get
away with this stuff if no one else was around
when it happened. First of all so one of the attorneys
you hired had election law experience so be it.
The rest of them you and I both know they really
weren't experienced in that aspect of law.
So you weren't forced out huh? Care revise that
bs statement? It was pretty well known in republican party circles that your establishment
friends were unhappy with the job you were doing
during that time frame. So your friends found
away for you exit the scene gracefully by creating a position for you at the Gallatin
group.
Chris you amaze me you keep shoveling this story
about Dino Rossi strongly supporting your re election in 2000. I guess you must think if you
say it enough everyone will buy into it. On the
surface yeah it looks like Dino did strongly support you. But you and I know what really happened behind the scenes prior to the vote taking place. As long as you continue to espouse
this story and I hear about it, I'm not going to
let you get away with it. If for know other reason
that what happened to my friend Mark Hulst that weekend in January of 2000 will never happen again
in Washington state republican party state chair
election proceedings.
Hey Chris why aren't you working for the Gallatin
group any longer? Would you like me to explain to
everyone why your not anymore? I'll make you a deal if you continue to shovel this story about
Dino and his strong support of you in 2000 then I
will reveal to the good readers of sound politics
just why your not working there anymore. But for
now will just keep between us guys ok.
Are you as dumb as you appear to be?
I don't have a horse in this fight, other then against any idiots like yourself and Brian Thomas having any real influence on the party.
If you have any sort of proof other then your completely not credible word that he was forced out as Chairman, bring it forward. I dare you.
He obviously left Gallatin because he made more money in less time with his own company. Gave him more time with his wife and children as well. If you have any proof nefarious reason, I double dare you to bring it forward.
Of course, you won't. Because you don't have any. And absolutely nobody take your word for it, because your word is worthless. That's been proven again and again.
Posted by: Cliff on March 26, 2008 12:28 PM
LOL!!!!!!
Watch out for the black helicopters while you are at it!
Got meds?
Posted by: Cliff on March 26, 2008 12:31 PMAre you a lawyer? Do you understand what vote fraud is under Washington State law?
Obviously not.
Posted by: Cliff on March 26, 2008 12:33 PMI was absolutely not forced out as Chairman. If you have facts to the contrary please share them.
Likewise, if you have facts regarding why I now operate my own firm rather than work for someone else, again, please share them.
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 26, 2008 03:57 PM I am not about to divulge how
I know what happened to Chris Vance happened.But I will make you a promise when sharkansky and the rest of the contributors
here on sound politics give a source and documented proof of
what they write.about then so will I.
Cliff,
You have made the claim that I been proven wrong over and over again. Now I would like you
to back that up. When exactly have I been wrong? I asked Mr Vance what experience the attorneys he hired had an election law. Out of the six attorneys they hired he was only
able to document one's experience.you are so willing to
take Chris Vance's word for it on everything he says yet to your way of thinking everybody else must be lying or there an
idiot.Again where else have I
been wrong? Just because Chris
Vance says something doesn't make it true.
I might add there was nothing nafarious about the way Mr Vance left the Gallatin group. In fact
most people if they knew whart happened would find it rather humorous. Except Chris himself
of course. How do you know how much money he was making while he worked for the Gallatin group?
How is it obivious that he left there to spend more time with his family? You sir brought these things up now back them up or shut up.
Chris Vance,
Do you really want me to tell everyone here why you're not working for the Gallatin group any longer? Look I have nothing against you personally nor do I
think your a bad guy. The fact of the matter is had you and your establishment friends showed Mark Hulst and Susan Hutchison the respect they deserved we wouldn't be having this discussion.
But you made it personal when you as a state chair crossed the
line with your behavior towards
them.Mark and Susan mean a great
deal to me and damn it they deserved better than what you did to them.
As to the reasons for your resignation from the state chair
position I really don't want to
bring other individuals into this that there when it happened but I will if I have to. For now
We will just leave at that.
You're never right. You're a smear artist in the same vein as Michael Moore.
Case in point: You spent the entire thread here slandering people, and when pressed for evidence, you try to sluff it off with a bunch of weasel words and give no proof.
If every other word that came out of Chris Vance's mouth was dishonest, he'd be 50% more honest then you.
Posted by: Cliff on March 27, 2008 09:40 AMCliff,
How about you going to the WA SC website and do a search for Case No. 77345-9 - In Re the Recall of Gregoire.
If my claims were not true, why are they hiding the very existence of the case? Why wouldn't they simply publish a decision as they are required by the WA Constitution and the RCWs?
I suspect you know exactly why.
Ever seen one of those movies where some lunatic is talking about something nuts that everybody knows is bull?
You're that guy.
Anyhow, if the case is as you say it is, file a FOIA, get the case, and make a big deal out of it.
Oh, wait, I forgot, "THEY" won't let you.
Posted by: Cliff on March 27, 2008 05:49 PM I asked you to back up your claims about me and about Vance.
Instead all you do is engage in
character assasination.I have
slandered no one sir. Chris Vance knows full well I can back
up everything I have said here.
Furthermore he knows how I can as well.
The fact of the matter is if you
read between the lines when he answers my questions he never really answers most of them.Chris almost always denies my assertions but he never addresses most of them specifically. Don't want to believe me? Well I will give you one example. For several years now Chris and I have battled it out over his claim that Dino Rossi strongly supported his reelection for state chair in 2000.
He and I both know this is pure nonsense. How do I know this?
About two weeks before the election preceedings took place
Chris sent out a letter to all
the state committee members saying that Dino Rossi had asked
Mark Hulst to drop out of the race for state chair. This same
letter went to most of political
media in the state of Washington.
While it all sounds good there's
just one problem with it, one
Major problem with it. Dino Rossi never made any such request of Mark Hulst. David Ammons the AP political reporter here in Washington showed this
letter to Mark when he and the
rest of the media had a sit down
discussion with him. It was at that time that David Ammons asked if it was true. Mark of course denied there was any truth to this letter. Later that day Ammons or one of the reporters contacted Dino Rossi and asked him if he had in fact
asked Mark Hulst to drop out of
the race. Dino strongly denied
ever making such a request.
It was maybe a day or two later
that Dino decided he was going to back Mark Hulst.How do I know
this? Because the Rossi campaign
had discussions with Mark in the
ensuing days about how he was going to help Dino in the future. The Rossi campaign in turn told Mark they were drafting a letter that would be
sent out shortly indicating Dino's support for Mark Hulst.
What happened after that is a story I have repeated many times
over the past few years that has
never be refuted. For now I will
end right here.
For the record, and hopefully for he last time, none of your assertions regarding the 2005 Chairman's race are true.
Also for the record, people can still read the December 28, 2004 letter endorsing my re-election signed by Dino Rossi, Rob McKenna, Doug Sutherland, and our three current members of Congress.
www.soundpolitics.com/VanceLetterOfSupport.pdf
Phil is a good reason the Rs are in such tight straights in the State. He can't seem to get along.
This is a dead thread; other than Chris V and Phil, I may be the only one checking up.
My only care is that the Rs need to recoup their losses and rebuild the party.
Posted by: swatter on March 28, 2008 07:09 AMBullshit. You're nothing but a fucking liar. If you weren't, you'd have proven it a long time ago.
It's impossible to assassinate your character. You have no character.
And if you want to know how I know it, I know it because that's what Chris said to several news outlets back at the time. Google it. I'd take his word over yours any day of the week.
Posted by: Cliff on March 28, 2008 08:36 AMPhil conintues to imply that I somehow tricked Dino into endorsing me in 2005. That is absolutely not true. What's more, the story changes every time he tells it. Here is is 2005 version from his own blog:
"After almost a 3 week hiatus I have returned I have a gotten a lot of
questions about why I seemed to have it in for Chris Vance. Here's the
answer in December of 2004 my wife and I were at a republican women's
of Seattle Christmas party at the home of Pedro celis.Dino Rossi happened to
come to the party. I had the pleasure of speaking with dino.During the course
of the conversation mark hulst's name came up.Dino had a lot of nice things to
say about mark.
My first thought was lets see if he knows what marks doing right now.
So I asked Dino if he heard what mark was doing? He said no I don't.
I was surprised, my response oh you don't know.I don't know if I
should say, Dino says oh come on you can tell me.I said I don't know.
All at once Dino says oh your talking about the state chair race.
well mark's not going to run.
I was shocked it was a mere 3 days earlier that I had spoken with
mark he never said anything about it.So when I got home that
night I emailed mark telling him that I was sorry to here that he had
decided not to run for state chair.The next day mark
returned my email saying whatever gave you the idea that
I'm not running?I thought oh boy what's going on here."
Notice this version contains no mention of a letter, or Dave Ammons.
Phil also had a lengthy post on the same blog detailing how I had cut a deal with Jennifer Dunn to make her son WSRP Chairman:
"I have just learned that Jennifer
Dunn has been in discussions with Chris Vance about endorsing
Reagan Dunn for state chairman.Jennifer Dunn has 1.3 million
dollars left from her last congressional campaign.The state GOP
is just over 1 million dollars in debt.1 million of Jennifer dunn's
money has been offered to pay off this debt.
What they are doing here is once again trying to buy a position
and influence.Chris Vance I'm told will run for the state senate
seat in his home district.As for Reagan Dunn he lost once to Steve
Hammond he will lose again when he runs for state chair.
How do I know this?For now you will have to just take my
word for it.At the appropriate time everyone will know what
I'm talking about."
Not one word of that was ever true.
Again, my only purpose here is to refute factual inaccuracies told about me and events in which I was involved.
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 28, 2008 09:36 AM Your very good at twisting things to make you
look good. Well you tie two stories together
and try and make it look like one. First of all at the
time I wrote that story It wasn't about what happened
during the State Chair elections. It was about a
conversation I had with Dino Rossi in December of
2004. I repeat I was not telling the story about what went on behind the scenes during the state chair race of 2005.
Chris just because you deny something doesn't make it a lie. You know damn well what I said about David Ammons is the truth. Do I need to
drag Mark Hulst,David Adams who is friends with
David Ammons I might add, into this? You see David
Adams was there for this ordeal. He had a first person view of the whole thing.As well as Mark's
wife and about a half a dozen political reporters.
As to what I wrote in the Reagan Dunn story my sources stand by what they said. So will just
call this one stalemate and leave at that.
Cliff,
Your name calling is getting really old. Once
more I will say it. Just because Chris Vance said it
doesn't make it the truth. with that this thread
I'm done with.
1. The election for Chairman took place in January, 2005. The conversation you claim to have had with Dino in December 2004 would have been about that election.
2. What you said about Dave Ammons and a letter from me to the State Committee is absolutely not true.
Posted by: Chris Vance on March 28, 2008 04:22 PM" Lenin said, a lie told often enough becomes the truth. "
Chris:
Why am I not surprised that Lenin's writings are required reading for someone in your business and that the one you would quote is " .... a lie told often enough becomes the truth. ".
Professional admiration on your part Chris?
The only person in your business that I know is a bigger practitioner of that axiom than you is Michael Young. He, and Ross Marzolf, have made " .... a lie told often enough becomes the truth. " a basis principal of their administration of the King County Republican Party. As you did for the Washington State Republican Party.
P.S. Sorry Chris, but actually you are third in line. I forgot Diane Tebelius and her tenure as Chairman of the Washington State Republican Party.
Posted by: Brian Thomas on March 28, 2008 05:39 PMCliff,
Why are you ignoring the fact that the Washington constitution requires that justice be administered "OPENLY" and that the WA constitution requires all decisions of the state SC be "published"?
You must know what the case is about or you wouldn't be trying to do everything possible to ignore the requirements of the WA constitution.
You are obviously just fine with racketeering in the state SC.
Posted by: Don on March 29, 2008 02:43 PMYes, you see, everybody knows about it, and everybody except you knows what's in the case.
It's a big conspiracy to keep you silenced, and EVERYBODY is in on it except for you.
You know that noise you've been hearing out back? That's our guys keeping a watch on you so you don't mess things up.
Posted by: Cliff on March 29, 2008 03:28 PMCliff,
If you claim to know about it, how about pointing out just a few facts that are uncontroverted, such as Gerry Alexander admitting to me on August 12, 2002, that I was entitled to a $1.2 million judgment against Clark county and him saying he wasn't going to do anything about it. You certainly aren't going to deny that, are you?
I'm sure you can come up with a few other things.
You are no different that Stalinist Russia, claiming that anyone who has a legitimate complaint must be unbalanced. How does it feel to be a Stalinist.
You are a slime ball apologist for racketeers.
Posted by: Don on March 29, 2008 05:59 PM